Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1985.09.10CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 10, 1985 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Garcia on Tuesday, September 10, 1985 at 7:32 P.M. POT.T. (AT.T. Present: Commissioners Garcia, Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor Absent: Commissioner Giomi Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome Coleman (arrived 9:10 P.M.); City Engineer Frank Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the August 26, 1985 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - The Chair noted Item #6 had been withdrawn. Order of the agenda was then approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. VARIANCE TO SECOND FLOOR SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR A PARTIALLY COMPLETED ADDITION AT 21 ARUNDEL ROAD Reference staff report, 9/10/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, Planning staff comments, staff review. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Bruce Lubarsky, 301 Poett Road, Hillsborough, attorney representing the applicant commented on the thorough staff report, the inadvertent city error and his client's cooperation with staff to reach a reasonable solution to the second floor side yard setback deficiency. He presented a photograph which he felt would suppport the variance request. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Ken Nocentini, 300 Bayswater Avenue and Phil Sofos, owner of 16, 18 and 24 Arundel Road spoke in favor. Mr. Nocentini did not believe 9" would make an appreciable difference; the addition would be an asset to the community and it would be very expensive to alter the construction at this time. Mr. Sofos commented the addition would not be a detriment to the neighborhood and would appreciate his property across the street. The following spoke in opposition: John Calwell, 1035 Morrell Avenue; Eugene Ersfeldt, 27 Arundel Road; Mr. and Mrs. Dominico Russo, 17 Arundel Road (adjacent property owners). Their concerns: the height of the addition would obstruct light and air, it is extremely close to the Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1985 neighbor at 17 Arundel and has resulted in, the need for lights in both kitchen and dining room all day; an addition of this proximity would cause moisture on the side of the house next door and increase heating bills; -structure is too tall and think the 9" would make a difference. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Staff advised that because of the interior design of the floor plan moving the wall back would necessitate a variance to code required parking dimensions. Commission comment: would prefer to grant a 9" variance because of the placement of the house rather than give a variance to parking dimensions; concern about unprofessional plans and future access to the existing garage at the rear; unfortunate this occurred but applicant did obtain a building permit, don't think 9" are essential. Prior to a motion this item was continued to an executive session later in the meeting when the City Attorney would be present. 2. VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED GARAGE AT 853 PALOMA AVENUE Reference staff report, 9/10/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, history of this applicant's ownership of the site, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: location of the original garage, was there a carport originally, two doors from the main structure will be required, this is the only nonconformity on the site, building permits taken out for termite repair, reroofing and dry rot repair did not indicate work to be done to the garage. Raj Sarna, applicant and property owner, discussed his request to replace the existing garage in the same location, he was under the impression the garage was part of the permit for termite work, there was a garage and carport previously. Commission comment: possibility of altering the new roof and removing the overhanging eave, would prefer this solution to requiring an easement from the neighbor; need for a property line survey. �hairman Garcja o ened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the earing was c ose�. Further Commission discussion: basically the nonconformity in this property is the same nonconformity; applicant has improved the property; concern about the overhanging eave; garage is not in the rear 30% of the lot so is not exempt from side yard setback requirements. C. Jacobs found there were exceptional circumstances in that the applicant did not understand the city's requirements, the replacement garage is in the same location as the original garage which was non- conforming; this is an improvement to the property and to the neighborhood; the variance would not be detrimental to the public nor adversely affect the zoning plan of the city. C. Jacobs moved for approval of this variance with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's August 13, 1985 memo, the City Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 September 10, 1985 Engineer's August 19, 1985 memo and the Chief Building Inspector's August 30, 1985 memo shall be met; and (2) that if the survey shows any portion of the garage or carport overhanging property line, within 60 days it shall be removed. Second C. Graham. Comment on the motion: assume the applicant did not know he needed another building permit, he will have to pay a penalty for this-; do not feel the applicant has met the four legal requirements for variance approval; there are alternatives to providing the garage which will meet code; do not find this 3' variance a problem, the addition will be an improvement to the property; one hour construction will be required for any walls within 3' of property line. The Fire Marshal advised fire access to the rear is sufficient. Motion approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Taylor dissenting, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 8:20 P.M.; reconvene 8:30 P.M. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN INSURANCE REPLACEMENT AUTO RENTAL AGENCY TO OPERATE FROM AN OFFICE BUILDING AT 851 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED M-1 (CONTINUED FROM 8/26/85 Reference staff reports 9/10/85 and 8/26/85 with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, fleet size, applicant's letter, building manager's letter. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: it was noted building management of 851 Burlway has authorized four parking spaces to this applicant; staff advised that based on current code the building does not meet the city's parking standards. Roy Santos, office manager representing Brian Cochran, district manager, Amerex Rent-A-Car addressed Commission: they have been operating from this site for a year, have received no complaints from tenants of the building; most cars are delivered to several body shops in the bay area, they are left there and are not brought back to the office site; Amerex uses three on-site parking spaces per day at the most; this office is used only as a reservation and dispatch center. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Responding to Commission question, applicant stated they could not conform to the condition requiring all lease agreements be written in the City of Burlingame; regarding limitation of the fleet size to 25, he could see no reason why they should be limited to 25 since even with a 90 car fleet most cars would not be in the parking lot. Staff advised 25 was an arbitrary number, since these permits run with the land it is a control on the volume of this and future businesses. In further explanation of the business, Mr. Santos stated they have 37 Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1985 cars at present, they have had 45 in the past, all are dispatched and do not come to the site, they go from one shop to another; this business is insurance replacement, customers are met at the body shops. He reconfirmed they could not meet the conditions regarding fleet size and writing of lease agrements in the City of Burlingame. They have national accounts and bills go out from the corporate offices in Ohio. Commission comment: think the applicant should investigate the possibility of writing all contracts in Burlingame; concern that a future use could be any type of car rental agency; not so concerned about this use as about the long range impact of this use, a regular car rental agency could generate parking problems; think Commission should limit the use to this particular use. Staff advised a special permit cannot be conditioned to a specific busines/person, consideration this evening is clearly a special permit determination. Mr. Santos stated he could not make a decision on the conditions of operation. C. Taylor moved to continue this item to the meeting of September 23, 1985. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on unanimous voice vote. Commission requested a representative be present at the next meeting who could act for the company. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A 50 SF SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA TO REMAIN ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT AT 808 EDGEHILL DRIVE Reference staff report, 9/10/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. It was noted complaints had been received about this installation and it was before Commission as a code enforcement item. Bruce Kreger, attorney representing Servamatic Inc. and Earl Nichols, their national installation supervisor were present. Mr. Kreger stated that those people who would normally be involved in this application did not learn about it until today, most of the contacts have been through the branch office or subcontractor; there have been personnel changes recently in the branch office. He requested a continuance to the next Commission meeting in order to address the questions and issues which were raised in staff's August 19, 1985 letter. He advised Mr. Nichols planned to inspect the site tomorrow; the company is just starting this business, normally they have procedures for permits; the project manager for this application is no longer with the company, their corporate offices are in San Ramon. C. Jacobs moved to continue this item to the meeting of September 23, 1985. Second C. Graham; motion approved unanimously on voice vote. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A MOBILE RADIO -TELEPHONE SYSTEM STATION AND ANTENNAE AT 1350 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 9/10/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's description of the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 September 10, 1985 system, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission questions: what space is applicant occupying in this building which gives them the use of the roof; will basement storage area have waterproof doors; how visible are the antennas. Engineering will not allow the basement area to be used as a habitable floor. Monica Zorovich, Whisler-Patri and John Kelly, operations manager, GTE Mobilnet were present. Ms. Zorovich advised GTE Mobilnet is a subsidiary of GTE. Mr. Kelly discussed this proposed installation: the height; support pole and screen will be painted the same color as the structure they will be mounted on, they will blend with the building; they need certain heights to cover the area for this cellular mobile telephone service. They prefer to install on a building since then they do not have to construct a tower themselves; this system is currently in use at the -airport, they have not received complaints. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. C. Schwalm moved for approval of this special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo of August 13, 1985 and the City Engineer's memo of August 19, 1985 shall be met; (2) that the equipment room in the basement shall not be visited more often than once every 40 days and the employee doing the service shall not stay.at/in the room for more than four hours and no employee shall have a desk or other office anywhere on the premises of the storage basement; (3) that the applicant shall provide to the city a clearance from the FAA showing that the antennae are not a hazard to aviation and do not require hazard or other lights; and (4) that a letter from both the FCC and the San Francisco International Airport shall be submitted stating that the frequency being used in this cellular system is approved and not a hazard to the operation of San Francisco International Airport. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT - COURIER OPERATION - 1722 GILBRETH ROAD Application withdrawn. Following the arrival of the City Attorney a recess to executive session was called by the Chair at 9:30 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:40 P.M. to continue Item #1, Variance at 21 Arundel Road. 1. VARIANCE FROM MINIMUM SIDE YARD REQUIREMENTS - 21 ARUNDEL ROAD C. Jacobs found there were exceptional circumstances in this lot that is only 45' wide; that given the placement and floor plan of the original house, providing the required off-street covered parking to Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 September 10, 1985 code dimensions would result in substantial modification to the interior design of the existing structure if a 5' setback were maintained at ground level; that setting back the second floor 9" would add substantially to the cost of the addition; that the variance would not be"detrimental to the neighborhood and it would not adversely affect the zoning plan of the city. C. Jacobs moved for approval of this variance with the following condition: (1) that the project as built be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 3, 1985. Second C. Graham. In comment on the motion a second condition was suggested: (2) that there be a door at the rear of the new garage to provide access to the existing garage at the rear. C. Jacobs amended her motion to include condition #2, C. Graham amended his second. Motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. THREE VARIANCES TO ALLOW CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING WAREHOUSE TO AN OFFICE/AUTO RETAIL CENTER AT 1070 BROADWAY, ZONED M-1 8. THREE SPECIAL PERMITS TO ALLOW CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING WAREHOUSE TO AN OFFICE/AUTO RETAIL CENTER AT 1070 BROADWAY, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 9/10/85, with attachments. C. Taylor excused himself from review of this item because of conflict of interest and left the podium. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, environmental review, staff review, circulation and access issues, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, new alignment of the Broadway/California intersection, new traffic counts of California/ Broadway intersection. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CE's condition to prohibit traffic crossing Broadway from Carolan to the site was noted. Michael R. Harvey, applicant; Joe Harvey, contractor and Richard Hopper, traffic engineer were present. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Alan Horn, 1325 Paloma Avenue and John Calwell, 1035 Morrell Avenue spoke in favor: no objection to the height, would like to see this building remodeled and the neighborhood improved. Nicholas Crisafi, 1241 Whitethorn Way commented he had no objection to the structure but expressed concern about increased traffic at the Broadway intersection which is extremely congested at present. There were no other audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: think the structure will improve this entrance to the city, landscaping is a concern, would like to screen the parking garage as seen from California Drive and along the railroad tracks; regarding traffic circulation, "no left turn" signs are violated daily, would prefer to place a barrier there; barriers will not stop left hand turns and they often get torn down, would not like to see the left hand turn from Carolan onto Broadway eliminated; from experience have found right hand turns from Broadway to California are no problem, that is the only lane that moves; the existing structure Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1985 is an eyesore, project will give life to that area; since at the present time applicant cannot provide a second means of egress, either a barrier or traffic light seems necessary; would be in favor of trying a barrier and if it doesn't work put in a traffic signal; not sure applicant should be required to pay the entire cost of a signal. CE wished to reword condition #6 to leave it up to the Public Works Department and City Engineer to determine what regulation is necessary for traffic circulation, giving staff flexibility. A Commissioner commented the EIR determined this project would only increase traffic 1%, would suggest the CE determine what should be done at the intersection. Another felt Commission should make a decision on the facts available now and not leave it to some future indefinite date, she stated she could not vote for this project without a barrier, another light might not be the answer. The CE did not want to make any recommendation at this time without reworking the California/Broadway intersection. Applicant commented a barrier could curtail the project and/or eliminate it, it would restrict his employees and customers. A Commissioner suggested condition #6 state "signalization will be installed as soon as possible". Richard Hopper, traffic engineer, responding to Commission questions, stated that a signal would work very effectively here; a third signal would have to be coordinated with those at Rollins and Broadway to work as one signal; if turns are to be prohibited at an intersection the only way it can be done properly is by a barrier, signs do not prohibit the movement; strict enforcement might work but it is a lot of time and money. He did not recommend a barrier be put in unless there is a second access; U turns take a lot of time and they would affect the Rollins intersection. Continued discussion: with elimination of second access and a barrier, the only option left is a light; think Commission should recommend signalization. Applicant commented: no project means no intersection changes for the city; there could be increased traffic with some new use and the city would have to pay for the signalization; he requested some consideration with respect to the cost of signalization since he was also required to pay a bayfront development fee. Further comment: signing and restriping for right turns in and out could be done by the opening date of this business; approximate cost of signal would be $70-75,000. Does Commission have to solve this whole circulation problem with this project when the EIR shows there will be only 1% increase in traffic? Applicant did not feel he should be required to pay for signalization, the street is not his responsibility and city will benefit from his business. Responding to Commission question, Mr. Harvey enumerated the suggested conditions he could not live with: conditions 1-5 of the CE's August 27, 1985 memo (responsibility for all costs of Public Works improvements) and conditions #6 and #7 in the CP's staff report. Regarding implementation of TSM strategies (condition 7) he felt something could be worked out like flexible hours, did not volunteer a coordinator. Page 8 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1985 C. Graham moved for approval of the three special permits (to allow an auto sales use in the M-1 district, to allow construction which exceeds 35' in height and to allow office area to exceed 20% of the gross floor area), eliminating reference to the CE's August 27, 1985 memo and deleting conditions #6 and #7 in the staff report and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits and Variances. Second C. Schwalm. During discussion on the motion a condition was added to require that the applicant pay a share of the cost of Public Works improvements at the Carolan/Broadway intersection. C. Graham amended his motion; C. Schwalm amended his second. Conditions of the motion for approval follow: 1. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's July 19, 1985 memo and the Chief Building Inspector's August 2, 1985 memo shall be met; 2. that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 17, 1985 for the parking garage and building remodel; 3. that landscaping be provided in planters on the south wall of the parking garage and planted with materials which will soften the face of that wall of the structure, the developer/property owner shall maintain all landscaping on site and final landscape and irrigation plans including plant materials shall be approved by the Parks Department prior to issuing a building permit; 4. that any change in usage of the floor areas of this building or the parking structure shall require application to the Planning Department and amendment to this use permit, including storage of new or used cars in the parking structure; 5. that new jobs for businesses located in this building shall be advertised in local newspapers to keep relocation to a minimum; 6. that the applicant shall pay 25% of the cost of signalization, coordination and direct intersection improvements at the Carolan/ Broadway project intersection; 7. that the developer shall pay all city required site development fees including the bayfront development fee; 8., that the improvements to the remodeling of the building shall include modifications to reduce interior noise levels to 25 dB on the south side of the building and 20 dB on all other sides of the main structure, and shall provide a mechanical ventilation system or air conditioning system; 9. that a written seismic evaluation shall be submitted with building plans including structural analysis confirming seismic safety; and 10. that parking for construction workers shall be provided in a small lot on the site or within the existing building. Page 9 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1985 Motion approved on a 4-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting, C. Giomi absent, C. Taylor not voting. C. Graham found there were exceptional circumstances for Variance A (89% lot coverage) in that the applicant is adding parking far in excess of what is required which will help the street in future and will benefit the city, that the variance is necessary for the proposed use of car sales to have a parking structure and that it would not adversely affect the zoning plan of the city. He found exceptional circumstances for Variance B (0' front setback) in that the existing building is built to front property line and can't be moved, the parking structure is at the rear of the lot. He found exceptional circumstances for Variance C (variance to required landscaping requirements) in that the existing structure is built to property line in the front and no landscaping provided, the addition is built 8' into the remainder of the front setback, a portion of the remaining front setback will be landscaped, and the applicant will soften the structure along the railroad tracks with planters. C. Graham moved for approval of the three variances and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits and Variances with the previously listed conditions. Motion approved on a 4-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting, C. Giomi absent, C. Taylor not voting. Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its September 3, 1985 meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Robert J. Leahy Secretary